Good afternoon, everyone.

Time is now 3 p.m.

I'd like to call to order this historic design review commission for Wednesday, December 17, 2025.

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'aman.

Present.

Savino, here.

Velasquez, Galloway, Mazuka.

Here.

Cervantes.

Here.

Holland.

Here.

Fetzer?

Here.

Gibbs.

Here.

And group.

Here.

We had a quorum.

Thank you.

May I have translation services, please?

Good afternoon.

Buenas tardes.

Las personas que prefieren escuchar esta audiencia in espanhol.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The historic and design review commission is an advisory board appointed by the city council.

I am Jay Maurice Gibbs, Chairman, and the Vice Chair is Jeffrey Fetzer.

It is a function of the Commission to advise the city manager and all relevant city departments concerning all applications for permits for properties in historic districts for landmarks on city property in the river improvement overlay and for demolitions.

And considering whether to recommend approval or disapproval of an application for certificate of appropriateness, the commission shall be guided by the city's unified development code and design guidelines and standards that have been adopted by city council.

An appeal of a decision by an administrative official can be filed in accordance with the city's unified development code.

If anyone present wishes to speak in favor or in opposition to any item on today's agenda, please sign up on the public comment sheet.

It is not necessary to sign up if you are the owner of or representative for a project on the agenda.

You will be called on as the case is called.

Case representatives will be given no more than 15 minutes to present their case with an additional two minutes to respond to public comments.

Speakers for or opposed to a case will be limited to two minutes each.

Speakers may also sign up to yield their two minutes to another speaker who has signed up.

Anyone who is yielding their time must be present at the time the speaker is called upon.

Speakers will be called upon in order in which they are signed up.

Following public testimony, any commissioner may call upon any speaker to respond to further questions.

Approval by the commission does not take the place of any type of permits.

Permits must be attained for all work.

Certificates of appropriateness for work approved by the commission will be emailed to you within 10 days.

No work of any type is to be started without obtaining the appropriate city permits after a certificate of appropriateness has been issued by the Office of Historic Preservation.

At this time, please silence your cell phones.

Good afternoon, everyone.

First item is approval of meeting minutes from December 3rd.

Mr.

Chair, I move for approval of the meeting minutes for December 3rd, 2025.

Second.

Thank you.

Hearing none, may I have a roll call, please?

Ma'amin.

Aye.

Savino.

Aye.

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

And I just remembered our next item is approval of the 2026 meeting schedule.

And so I don't think we are prepared to pull it up, but Edward can start working on that if there's any questions.

But it'll continue to be the first and third Wednesday of the month.

And I'll just note that the holidays are coming up, and so city offices will be closed December 24th through January 2nd is when we'll be back.

So the first hearing after the break will be January 21st.

We do need action on the approval of the calendar.

Move for approval for the uh 2026 HCRC hearing schedule.

Second.

It's been moved and properly second for the discussion.

May have a roll call, please.

Ma'aman.

Aye.

Civino?

Aye.

Mazuka.

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Uh moving on to our consent agenda.

We have 15 items.

Item 16 will be heard individually, which is different than what was posted, but we're making that clarification now.

Um at this time we hear public comments for items on consent, um, beginning with voicemail for item number seven.

Hello, this is Lulu Francois, Chairperson of the Dignity Hill Historic Neighborhood Review Committee.

Calling in on case 322 Lamar, HDRC case number 346.

We do not agree with OHP's recommendation to grant historic tax verification for 322 Lamar.

At the September 3rd HDRC meeting, we agreed with staff's recommendation to replace the walkway pavers with a continuous walkway.

We also called out that the applicant had removed the existing fish scale siding above the window on the west side of the house and requested that this siding be reinstalled.

The HDRC commissioners agreed with this request and added the replacement of the face scale siding as a stipulation to be met.

Our comments and a picture of the fish sales scale siding from that meeting are in the documents provided.

This detail is what makes the house stand out and should be replaced until this is done.

The applicant should not receive historic tax verification.

Thank you.

Edward, if you'll pause on that, we actually need to go back to item number one.

We have an in-person speaker.

Eduardo, I cannot pick make out the last name.

Yeah, you'll go ahead and come up and just introduce yourself.

You'll have two minutes.

Sorry about that.

Uh hello, my name is Eduardo Meza, and I'm the owner of 1041 West Agarita Avenue.

Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

Apologize for my voice and getting over something.

Uh I'm requesting historical landmark designation because I believe this home is an important and well-preserved example of Beacon Hill's early residential development, and I want to be a responsible steward of uh that history going forward.

The house was built in 1919 during San Antonio's first major period of expansion and reflects the wood siding when uh the craftsmanship bungalow style that defines much of Beacon Hill, uh much of Beacon Hill.

It's original massing, roof form, wood siding windows, porch configuration, and detail remaining ta intact.

Uh and the homes continue uh can uh continues to read as clearly as streetcar era residents.

The property also occupies a prominent corner location at Aguita in Michigan, giving it a strong visual presence and allowing it to contribute meaningfully to the historic streetscape.

In that sense, it doesn't just represent its own history but also reinforces the architectural rhythm uh and character of the surrounding block.

I appreciate the staff's recognition that the home retains a high degree of integrity.

While there have been modest changes over time, such as the enclosure of a rear porch, these changes are secondary and do not dominate the structure.

I uh and do not diminish from the uh home's uh overall historic character from the public right of way.

For me, the landmark designation is not about limiting change, but about guiding uh guiding change responsibly.

I see this designation as a tool that helps uh to ensure any future improvements, respect the architectural character of the house, strengthen the neighborhood, and align with the city's preserve uh preservation goals.

I appreciate the staff's uh thorough review and recommendation for approval and respectfully ask for your support of this designation.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

All right, thank you.

Thank you and then for item 13, we have an in-person speaker, and then we'll follow that with voicemails.

Barbara Woodhoul Uh good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Barbara Woodhouse, 105 Magnolia Drive, River Road Neighborhood Historic Resources Committee.

I'm uh wanted to make comments concerning case 2025-331-142 armor place.

Uh on November 11th, um, I was invited to walk to a walkthrough uh with the group of neighbors for the new owner at 142 Armor Place.

Uh during that walkthrough, we saw outlines marked on the lot of two proposed structures, a studio and carport is shown on your monitor, maybe anyway, two um and last Friday, per usual, because this is when uh the the public gets to know about the specific uh uh actions or ideas or proposals for a case, uh we're distributed distributed uh to the committee members by another member who does this as a regular basis.

And that's when we were made aware of the details of the applicant's proposal.

And uh there was uh we had not met with the applicant before.

And so I realize we were notified we I was invited to it.

I didn't think about it at the time of inviting the rest of the committee or anything like that, but anyway, we did see it.

But anyway, we did see it.

So, due to the nature of the proposed structures, redrainage design and materials of we've uh on the uh between the south side of the property and existing historic home uh that abutts these proposed structures.

River Road Historic District Committee would like to meet with the applicant to clarify proposed elements through the RNA Historic District Committee before these proposed uh elements are considered by the commission.

We just want to be able to protect our neighborhood.

And uh we're just so committed to that.

So I would just like to say that we would like to be included in that process before it comes to the design review commission.

Thank you.

Hello, this is Bill Ailer calling in reference to case number 2025-331 at 142 Armor Place and River Road.

I am a next door neighbor of the project at 134 Armor Place.

Mr.

Bailey has shared his plans and drawings and conversations, and I am happy to support his effort.

Thank you.

My name is Jim McKennedy, 509 River Road.

Item number 13, 142 Armor Place.

Dear HCRC Commissioners, my husband and I are the only neighborhood home that has proximity and clear view of Mr.

Bailey's yard and new buildings.

Both our properties faces San Antonio River.

Our neighborhood is in a hundred-year floodplain.

We are happy to have Jim Bailey as a neighbor.

We have no objections to its planned buildings.

We discussed some concerns with him, and Mr.

Bailey offered the following mitigations for drainage pertaining to the carport shed.

The location of the shed building will be five feet from our fence line and roof line is three feet.

The roof is tilted toward the fence.

We previously have problems with water drainage in our backyard that necessitated an extensive drainage system.

Topography shows that we are lower than the armor property.

Mr.

Bailey has offered to build a swell behind his car park to prevent water from entering our property.

If this is not adequate, we would like the addition of gutters to further prevent drainage on our property.

The view said from this building, we can clearly see the cars and lights spill through our fence and into our home.

Mr.

Bailey agreed to cover the fence on his side so we cannot see the cars.

He also offered to build a structure to grow vines.

His offer to control the potential for lights bill.

The studio view shed.

Mr.

Bailey has agreed to attend foot set.

He will plant trees to further block the view of the studio for our house.

And now he will prevent lights flow from the studio.

We have planted two trees in the yard, and he will he has continued to water and maintain them.

For sounds in the studio, he will make the air conditioners quiet, maybe using mini splits and appropriate placements to not direct sound through our house.

Thank you for your time.

Hello, this is Monroe Brown calling in from 758 East Woodlawn Avenue in the historic River Road neighborhood.

I'm calling in support of agenda item 2025-3534 at 142 Armor, also in the historic River Road neighborhood.

The proposed plans are very modest improvements to the site and remain subservient to the original historic structure.

The site was once an overgrown mess filled with trash, and the owner has greatly improved the site already and will only continue to add to the beauty of the area.

For these reasons, I am in full support of the owner Jim Bailey's proposed plans.

Thank you.

Yes, my name is Bianca Maldonado, PO box 100315 78201.

This is for agenda item number 14.

My name is Bianca Maldonado.

I'm president of the Monatello Park Neighborhood Association, and our architectural review committee reviewed the case for Woodlawn Lake Park.

HDRK HDRC case 2025-323 regarding the improvements that are going to be made at multiple locations across the park.

We want to provide a huge thank you to our councilwoman for all her efforts in getting and gaining the monies to make these improvements and then also to Desiree Salmon for meeting with us regarding our concerns.

We have expressed the concerns that we had, which were minor, and the City of San Antonio is seeking to address and also explain a lot of detailed information to us.

We are excited and give our wholehearted support to this project, and we look forward to its execution and for it to begin.

So thank you so much for consideration of our comment, and we support the application as submitted.

Thanks so much for consideration of our comment.

Bye-bye.

Commissioners, those are all of the voicemails.

Please note there are letters in your packets or on your desktops for a number of these cases.

Thank you.

Commissioner Fetcher.

Yes, I'd like to pull item number three and thirteen.

Three and thirteen.

Any other commission like to pull any items?

Mr.

Chair, I would like to pull item number seven as well as item number twelve.

Any other items?

Thank you.

Commissioner Fesser.

Yes, I need to recuse off of uh the consent for item number two.

Let the record reflect that Commissioner Fetzer has left the room.

Um can I have a motion on the balance of the consent agenda?

Mr.

Chair, I move that the balance of the consent agenda be approved.

Would you mind listening to numbers, please?

This would I can do it.

Yeah, if it's a item.

One, two, four, five, six, eight, nine, ten, eleven, fourteen, and fifteen.

Yes, as stated.

And is that with stipulations?

With staff stipulation.

Thank you.

Second.

It's been moved and properly second.

Um, any further discussion?

Uh Mr.

Chair, I would like to make a comment regarding um the number of cases that are going for historic verification, tax verification, there are a number of them.

Um, as well as the landmark designation, I really commend all of you for doing that.

You'll find that it'll be very, very helpful as you continue to work on your house and you invest in your building, and especially to Mr.

Mesa.

Having that landmark in Beacon Hill is really um uh quite a special thing.

Your house is beautiful.

Thank you for doing that.

Thank you, Commissioner Savino.

May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

I Savino.

Aye.

Ms.

Yuka.

I Group.

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Hi.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

If you're on the consent agenda and your address is 1041 West Igerita, 1315 East Elmara, 110 to Lata, 611 Mason 414 Navarro, 219 FERD, 327 West Summit, 329 Madison, 708 Mason, 1103 Cincinnati, and 433 Madison.

Your case has been approved, and you do not need to stay for the remainder of this hearing.

If you have any questions, please contact a member of staff.

Your certificate of appropriateness or commission action letter will be prepared and emailed to you within 10 days.

Uh commissioners, we'll start off with item number three, 9800 Airport Boulevard.

Uh, Tim O'Crongly and Jane Ahrens are here in person.

Thank you.

Please introduce yourself as you start to the podium.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jamie Ahrens, and I oh, sorry.

My name is Jane Ahrens, and I am the design manager for the terminal development program.

Thank you.

Questions for the applicant.

Yes.

Um in the latest information, I believe you've uh located building 1322 on a site plan.

Yes, would you like to go to that slide?

Yes, please.

One more.

And wondering what the other structures are around there.

Um this goes back to a previous discussion about incorporating 1322 into the new walkway and why it couldn't be done.

So what are the other structures around this area?

The round building that you see is the TES tank, which is a thermal energy storage tank.

So it's 60 foot tall at least.

It's a large tank for water to offset our energy utilization.

Below that you'll see a fenced jar that has utilities in it.

To the left of that, you will see our pump station or for our sanitary sewer.

And you will see the aircraft RON positions remain overnight.

Those have a requirement of a certain clearance, and you can see the fence line that is behind the aircraft and behind the utility buildings.

Also see the treacherator.

I assume you know what that is.

I can explain later, if not.

Okay, thank you.

Um those other structures, since they would be visible from guests arriving to the terminal.

Uh will those be coming to the HCRC for review.

The um buildings or the structures that are in the um sort of faded out boxes, those are not things that you would see.

They're below ground with vents and things.

And so the treacherator building is a utility building.

Trucks come in and basically dump into that.

So it's not expected that we would be bringing forward a utility building.

They have already been permitted.

And in my understanding that they were given a certificate of appropriateness with the overall terminal program.

Okay.

As far as the tank, no, um again, a utility.

We were not expecting to bring that separately as it's not considered a building.

But if that is some sort of violation, we're certainly open to reconsidering or doing what we need to do.

Well, probably the bigger question would be the uh north side of the proposed walkway.

Um we've seen no elevations of that.

Walkway with materials and and such.

We have that in the presentation.

I'm happy to scroll to that if you'd like to see that.

I think we move those to the end.

So this is the front elevation of the walkway, utilizing the same materials that were shown to you in the terminal.

We have the stone cladding, we have curtain wall, metal roofing, and insulated metal panels as we do on the main terminal.

And then on the rear, which is what I believe you asked about, we have clear story glazing and metal panels.

And we do not have the accent stone, as obviously it faces the ramp space.

That's all I have for right now.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Yes, Mr.

Chairman.

Good Commissioner Sabino.

Okay.

Mr.

Chair.

The questions I have.

Uh what you just showed us here, and you've just brought up, Edward, those are the late submittal drawings, is that correct?

Late submittal.

Those were updated yesterday or today, is that what you mean?

Yeah, uh, yeah.

Okay.

I haven't had a chance to look at those at all, um, but would be very interested in taking a closer look.

My main concern was um uh something that struck me immediately, and I see in one of the letters in our file mentions this, but the uh choice to use the very iconic Y-shaped concrete structure, roof structure, in plan rather than in section or vertically as a way to honor the previous building as it imitates or mimics a shadow line.

Um can you talk about why a vertical structure could not be could not have been used, or why that is not integrated into the new design of vertical?

It was our significant effort to not mimic the existing building.

The existing building's unique feature is its cast-in-place structure.

And it's a very elegant building, and it has pieces that obviously, because of that construction methodology cannot be disassembled and reused in a structural methodology.

So in a building that is not cast in place, we felt that mimicking that was would cheapen both 1322 and our new project.

So it was not our intent to ever make our building look like that.

Oh, sure, for sure.

Um but use those elements in a direct method in a direct aesthetic that called for that.

So we used it in plan in the idea of shadows, we felt was very elegant.

And the Paseo is a very critical iconic piece of this terminal project.

So we felt it was really giving it a prominent location.

So the um ultimate choice was to use that form and not mimicking it as a building, but rather as a sign holder or trash can holder.

I can't quite tell what that is.

We use it as a shadow form in the sidewalk and in the paving, and we also use it in the um commemorative signs that are in there.

And the signage.

There are no trash can.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Savantes?

Yes.

For staff, what year was that building built?

Early 60s, I believe.

I don't have it off the top of my head, I'm sorry.

Pre-hemisphere.

Yes, I think so.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions, Commissioner?

Yes, I want to follow up on what Commissioner Savino was getting to is that the uniqueness of 1322 is its three-dimensionality with the Y columns and the barrel vaulted roof and all that.

And just wondering, well, you had said you didn't want to diminish its impact by trying to replicate it on something else.

But I'm just wondering if there's something else that couldn't be couldn't have been done, like this the garden path that you have and the shadow patterns on the ground.

And to really celebrate 1322.

Did you explore possibly having some sort of covered uh walkway or covered element on that walkway in that location?

You wouldn't might be able to possibly reuse the Y columns, but you could replicate them.

Possibly sections of the roof you could re-incorporate, but have it as a partially covered walkway, which is going to be much nicer in San Antonio than just walking down.

I know you have trees, but uh sun is a big issue in the heat.

So did you explore doing a three-dimensionality three-dimensional uh representation as part of the walkway system and not necessarily part of your building?

No, we were definitely not interested, and we did not explore using the elements directly as three-dimensional elements.

Would you consider you have a piece of a Y column or a replica of a Y column as a bench at the south end of your walkway?

Yes.

To reinforce the history of 1322, uh, would you consider putting another one at the north end so that people get it going and coming?

Yes.

Thank you.

Other questions for the applicant?

Our intent is to try to salvage the Y columns and use them as the benches.

We will make a model of them if we cannot salvage them.

Just and we will try to salvage two.

And then a question for staff.

Um in the DRC, it was mentioned that there was discussion or y'all had presentations or discussions with the uh the art aspect of the interior of your walkway.

Yes.

And question to staff.

Uh would the uh has that group been apprised of the historic nature of 1322 and possibly incorporate that into some of the interior artwork?

We had talked about potentially using salvaged material into the artwork, um, but we have not dictated that the artwork somehow interpret the history of the site.

So the content of the art is not something that's been dictated.

Is that something we could stipulate?

Or at least just discuss, have the opportunity to discuss with them encouraging some of the artists to possibly use that as inspiration.

I think we could certainly suggest that, yes.

There will be one artist for the overall connector, so maybe easier to coordinate that with one person rather than several.

Thank you.

Other questions for the applicant?

Not may have a motion, please.

Mr.

Chair, I'll move to approve.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved in properly second.

Any further discussion?

Yeah, I have a I have a comment, Mr.

Chair.

So I do appreciate what you're doing.

I see what you've done.

I think it's it's good, and I understand completely the I think one of my fellow commissioners taught me the term faux, what is it faux uh historicism?

For faux historicism, which you want to stay away from, right?

We did.

And I totally get it.

Um I see the little shadow things that you've done there on the line.

What I was what I would like to see what I was trying to get at the DRC was maybe that somehow shown in a vertical sense, right?

Not so necessarily 3D or anything like that, but in a vertical sense, so that you can see that when you're walking by, driving by, not just standing over it and kind of trying to notice that sort of thing.

Um because it is distinctive.

You see that when you're driving by, you see it when you're walking by and whatnot.

So that's what I was looking for, and that is my my concern.

I know you've gone you know uh uh pretty pretty well off into this, and I think you you've done a great job.

I just think the significance of that building needs to be more uh just a tad more without getting to that full historicism.

And that's a challenge, right?

I totally understand that challenge.

I'd like to see it something vertical.

Maybe uh go back to the front facing facade image of it, you know.

No, no, the the the proposed there you go.

Maybe something of like an archway between those two columns or something like that, that kind of like a shadow of what you've done on the ground, but maybe up there where those columns uh in that space between the columns and and and the roof, a little shadow or something two-dimensional up there.

I don't know.

I'm just giving you an idea, but it's just commissioners bringing the question.

Yeah, Mr.

Chair, I would like to just um along the lines of recommendations or comments.

Um I'm looking at slide number 17 in the original package that was made public.

Um I see I I see a a lot of uh validity in including vertical elements in that area to the south of this building.

We have a lot of glazing, not much of an overhang.

What we do have as an overhang is up pretty high.

I think the solar incident on that face will be pretty pretty heavy most of the time.

And that edge where the pedestrian walk through next to the the traffic lanes could really benefit from shade structures, and perhaps that's where uh some of the geometries from 1322 come into play.

Um also I think having a little bit more of a barrier between those pedestrians and that traffic moving out of the airport would be beneficial.

The way it's rendered here, and it's just a rendering, and I know that.

But seems minimal, especially for that person sitting on that bench with cars whizzing by and drivers looking at things other than proximity of that very nice pedestrian area.

So you know, for a number of reasons that area could benefit from some vertical, additional vertical elements which could be reminiscent, not identical, but reminiscent of the 1322.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other comments, Commissioner Group.

I just have one comment.

So the demovition had a bunch of stipulations and requirements.

Uh I just want to make sure that those are still valid.

They are, and just to clarify, the letter indicated that the building had been demolished already and it has not.

Thank you.

Other comments.

All right.

Yes, I was just one last comment.

Um I will not be supporting the motion.

Um along with Commissioner Savino.

I think some more um three-dimensional elements as part of the uh the uh reference to 1322 could be incorporated uh somewhere in the um in this part of the project.

So I will not be supporting the motion.

Thank you.

Is that something that could be stipulated, staff the question?

That that concerned that vertical element that that Mr.

Um that Jeff was just talking about.

Is that something that can be stipulated in the motion?

Just some sort of design element.

Yeah, what or just broad, just broadly, like he just his comment was fairly broad and open to interpretation.

That's how we got here.

Open to interpretation.

I think the most specific you know, additions of stipulations the better.

Um and so there is discussion about doing a like a physical model.

Um so as part of the building documentation which is required under that MOU, um, there will be um 3D laser scanning that actually has already been done.

And so they should be able to produce an accurate model that way.

So one of the additions that we were considering would be to put a scale model in the inside the walkway.

That's part of the bronze plaque and the historical aspect of it and images would be a model.

Can that be stipulated?

Thank you.

I don't know if you'll I'm Tim O'Crony, Deputy Director of the Airport.

There is some in it may you all may have already reviewed it inside the building, but we're proposing a plaque along with some of the narratives that would be on the inside and outside, talking about the building and the architecture and those Y columns would be supporting that narrative.

And we could consider uh building a model in there.

Thank you.

Final comments.

All right.

Um I'm sorry, one moment.

Um Commissioner Mazooka?

Yes, I I had a comment.

I I will not be supporting this motion either.

Um I think the uh there are many ways that this could be done showing a reference to the previous building in a vertical way without becoming false historical.

And I think it just shows a lack of imagination.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'amin.

Aye.

Savino?

Nay.

Mazuka.

Nay.

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes?

No.

Holland.

Aye.

Fetzer?

No.

And Gibbs?

Nay.

Motion fails.

Split vote.

Thank you.

May I have another motion, please?

I'll move to DRC.

Then move for DRC.

Is there a second?

Second.

It's been moved and properly second.

Further discussion?

I mean, I support it, but I think a DRC would not be beneficial if I mean now you've heard the comments.

So I think a DRC would be an informal discussion with some options with some vertical design elements as the Commission asked for.

Thank you.

Other comments?

Yes, I would encourage that as well.

We did have a DRC last week and discussed the three-dimensionality of 1322 and how that's was um what made it or uh greatly enhanced its historic historic nature.

So uh I think the DRC would be uh beneficial if it came back if the applicant came back with options uh addressing those concerns.

Thank you.

Yeah, I I I agree with that.

I mean we had the DRC, this was brought up, so just kind of keep that in mind, applicants.

This was brought up before.

Thank you, sir.

Any further comments?

May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Aye.

Savino?

Aye.

Mazooka.

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland?

Aye.

Betzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Item number seven, please.

So item number seven, um historic tax verification.

The uh applicants here in person.

Please step up to the microphone podium, please, and introduce yourself.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Gus de la Rosa, uh partial owner of 332 Lamar.

Thank you.

Question for the applicant.

Uh yes.

I have um well, my question primarily is to staff.

Um I'm just assuming this was an oversight, just an administrative oversight that we did not include the repair or the um yeah, the replacement of the fish scale shingles on the gables as part of this package.

Otherwise, um the other work that's been done is to the guidelines and is fine.

Yeah.

So I can Edward, I got it.

Um so there was that discussion in the stipulation at the last hearing.

Um so after that hearing, we checked our notes and looked at past approvals, pulled up all the emails.

And so the applicant here did request um approval to replace so just FYI.

There was a fire in the attic space, and so the entire roof was reconstructed uh with approvals.

And so as part of that process, there was a question to Brian, the case manager about um the new shingles.

And so what was proposed is a wood shake shingle, and that is what is installed here, it's just painted.

Um so that was viewed as an in-kind replacement and it was approved.

Um so it's actually not a violation.

That's our recommendation is that we don't feel there's a violation here.

The pattern is a little bit different than the pattern that was there previously, but those weren't fish scale like shape.

They were just in a pattern that's a little bit different than this one.

So since it was wood to wood.

Under what document was the replacement approved?

There was an administrative COA.

Administrative.

Uh what date?

Um prior to when you saw this violation, it was probably earlier in the year.

Was it there was an admin COA issued August 12th that uh allowed spot repair existing siding in kind, wholesale siding replacement is not requested nor approved at this time.

And this is the only other thing that speaks to siding repair on the explorer map.

So uh what other COA was there?

Brian's pulling it up now.

Okay.

So there was an email approval, but that should have been updated and issued in the COA.

Um but again, that's an administrative thing.

We don't believe that the applicant is in violation here.

Um they requested approval and got approval.

We just really should have updated the COA.

So you're issuing approvals without issuing COAs.

So you're doing it out of the public view and not including it in the package to benefit that discussion because it's clearly a replacement, not a repair.

There is less than typically for windows when we request a window repair.

Um at least 50 percent of that window needs to be damaged before we can uh begin replacing material.

And the damage from the fire was far less than 50 percent.

So anyway, I just this is the same.

Are we talking about the damage to the sighting?

Pardon?

On the outside, it looks like on the outside it looks different from the inside.

What happens is we take it apart, we disassemble it, we use it again.

And and ma'am uh, we tried.

Uh we tried to save this the fish scale, but on the inside it was charred where when we were pulling it off, it was it was kind of very brittle.

You I I also have to abide by code, right?

But as far as as as me, I submitted the documents and I got approval for the material.

That's that's all I am here for.

We typically would.

We what should have happened is the COA would have been reissued to include the uh shingle specification that was approved.

Considering this is such a significant part of the architecture and the material, typically what we will do is we will find salvaged shingle or have it made so that the thickness is similar to the original.

And I think that's the problem is the replacement, whether it's wood, it really looks like cement board because the projection of that material is really, really thin.

It's cement board, right?

No, it's it's wood.

It's really thin.

Um but the intent is that it look original.

Maybe we can't use the original material, like you said, because it's damaged.

But there is an effort and there is usually a requirement or a request that is that we use material that looks like the original.

Um oftentimes we'll take material from a less visible elevation so that we can complete the front elevation.

Um we do that with windows.

We do that with trims and other items.

So I'm just surprised that this action would take place on such a prominent prominent uh elevation when the damage was relatively minor.

I can say I did go.

So let me let me let me interrupt for a quick moment here, please.

So I thank you.

I mean, I'll give you uh opportunity to make your last comments, but when it comes to this here, the the issue is not with the applicant here, is of course with you know what's bad.

And so he did what he filled as though it was right because he got the approval.

It just it wasn't the procedure last side wasn't followed up here.

So um if you like to make final comments or I'll allow you to do that.

I just want to say they the the OHPA uh provided me off uh a bunch of stores to attend in downtown to find salvage material.

Nobody has that material.

I searched the internet for to find the most exact this is not an easy material to come across.

And the only other option is to I guess try to find somebody that will make it um per hand, but not everybody wants to I couldn't find nobody I couldn't find I spent like two months trying to find this material, ma'am, and I could not find it.

That's why when I finally got it, I was I gotta get this approved.

And this is the closest that I could that I could came across.

Okay.

Um yes, but the issue being is how this was processed.

Um we also have a salvage warehouse that the city owns.

Um and I my understanding is this is where some of that salvage material would be from other structures and uh you know materials like this should be made available to the public when they're in a pinch like you're in.

Going back to the process, um, um how are we supposed to moving forward?

How do we go through cases similar to this where uh the restoration isn't complete, but we also don't have documentation staff.

How do we do what we need to do?

I have admitted that we made a mistake.

Um we normally do reissue the COAs and we strive for not not to happen.

I apologize for the error.

Mr.

Chair, I'd like to do a motion for this case.

Mr.

Chair, I have a quick question before the motion.

Uh okay, Commissioner Cervantes.

Yes.

The fisk yell on either side on the both sides in the back, is that still there?

The only place that had fish kill was the front.

Incorrect.

There's a picture where it shows.

Yeah, it's not there.

It's just siding.

And what about the back?

The back was recompletely done, so there's nowhere to put fish scale.

Okay.

And the fish scale for that was back there is gone, right?

Because that was not damaged.

The back was not there, there was no fish scale on the back.

The whole roof, the whole roof had to be it was gutted.

The whole roof if I have pictures, I I need to go find them, I will find them.

The whole roof of that house was gone, demolished.

Because when when we had City come out and hey, how do we do this to code because of the smoke damage to all the wood that's up there, all the shingles, everything they're like, hey, you can't reuse none of this.

I maybe we did an error at that point, but when we were pulling it off, I remember that fish scale, I don't know how old it is.

It wasn't it was not something that we would be easily keep and put it back on.

Staff, can you bring up the picture of the back, please?

You have a specific page number you want me to jump to.

In and around 54 it shows the sides too.

And I'm just trying to if you didn't keep any of that material, right?

No, sir.

Photo 52.

Mr.

Chair, I have a question for the applicant.

If you were able to find um the material, would you replace it with the correct material?

I don't have the funding for it, ma'am.

Okay.

Thank you.

But I get I I could try my best.

If if I mean I already just the front, the guy, just the front little piece, that was a thousand dollars in material.

Now I don't I'm not made out of I I swear it's it's expens the piece that I replaced that we replaced, that cost us a thousand dollars.

Because it was shipped from I don't know where why I found it on internet and I've got it approved.

It was expensive.

Now to replicate that to ideal, I don't I don't if I could find the material, I'll have somebody out and get a bid and see and I'll try to honor it as best as possible just because I've tried to make you every time we've come up here or any time issue we've had an issue, I voiced my opinion, but yet we've always came through because that's the way we want to do business.

So if that's what you guys are looking for, we can do it.

But it's gonna take some time to save some money, I guess.

Sure, sure.

So you could do that if um what we're stipulated in the U.S.

If we find them if the material just magically appears.

Well, if we can find it, maybe we can do a search.

Yes.

And help.

Thank you.

Commissioner Group.

So I would like to move uh to approve.

Second.

Okay.

So property second.

Go ahead.

Go ahead.

The comment is um the applicant did receive uh an approval, so that's why I don't I mean, yes, we can have lengthy discussion of what the future looks like in other cases, but in this case the applicant has done what he did ask and he got approval.

This is not a violation that he actually did get an approval.

So Commissioner Holland.

Yeah.

Um it reviewing this case, and it's been in front of us a couple times.

You you've you followed the the guidelines that OHP has provided to you.

So I don't I I do see maybe you know some discussion on procedures within you know on our side of the table, but I'm not seeing um, you know, it feels fruitless to talk about you know to to hold you to a standard that you weren't asked to be held to in the beginning.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other comments.

All right.

So and I I'd like to echo my fellow commissioners.

Um the um you did what you um was supposed to do.

I mean, you did what you needed to get done, um, and you know, internal issues or whatever, and those happen, you know, and but that's not you know your fault.

I mean, when it comes to the the fish scale on the side, I mean, I'm I'm not sure what happened there or why they happened there, but nevertheless, you did receive administrative approval.

Um, so we're good there.

So before we take a vote, do you want to make any final comments for coffee vote?

Um if if approved, because obviously we we need just tax money.

And we find the material, ma'am, I will get it installed.

Thank you.

Aye.

Civino?

Nay.

Mazuka.

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland?

Aye.

Fitzser Fetzer.

No.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

This is item number 12, says 354 East We Set.

Uh the applicant is John Logan.

Uh Commissioners, uh, we do have updated construction documents.

Thank you.

Um I ask before you start if um if whoever is going to speak or if you're going to speak afterwards, make sure when you come up you introduce yourself before you start speaking.

Thank you.

I'm John Logan.

Use a mic, please, sir.

Oh.

Uh John Logan with Witty Construction.

Thank you.

Question about the applicant.

Yeah.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Hi, thank you for coming and sticking around for this.

I pulled this case because I was a little confused by the drawings, the elevations that appear in the original package, as well as the late submittal uh drawings.

So you're requesting a number of rehab and uh uh restoration and repair actions.

And you want to increase the ridge height of the roof, of the main roof, correct?

Yes.

The drawings to me appear that one means or one way you're getting to that is you're raising the plate height of the house.

Is that what's happening here?

The wall height.

It looks like from the drawings.

Yeah.

Hi, I'm Dan Gonzalez.

I'm uh did the preliminary drawings for this.

And what it is is that the actual plate height of the first floor stays the same.

But uh in the original scheme, the pitch of the roof was right on that plate.

And so what the cut the uh client was asking if we could raise sort of do it uh three or four feet high in the attic.

And so raise the roof itself.

So but the original plate stays the same on the ground floor.

Take a look at on the original package.

May we see page nine that show the front elevations?

There's a before and an after.

So this tells me that in the above, we see the plate height, the top of the wall plate height, not the bottom sill, but the top plate height at what?

What's the height right now?

The current?

Oh, the other issue too is that the engineer was specifying a uh because right now it's just a two by four ceiling joist.

Uh so he was specifying a 16-inch, I guess uh floor joist on that.

So that raised it up that little bit, and then the owner wanted a little bit higher uh in the attic.

So you're okay, so your wall height for the house is actually increased by how how much?

How many feet?

Four feet, I guess to the ridge.

The so the transverse uh component roof, that's the only one that's going up, and that's going up about four feet.

Are you changing the pitch?

No, it's the same pitch.

So that means you're taking that roof that doesn't change the pitch, and you're lifting that roof on the wall by four feet.

Right, in the attic space.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions for the applicant.

And yes, that top plate was is bigger because of the engineer's recommendations.

Thank you.

Question.

Raising that ridge height, does that affect the height of the front chimney?

Yes.

So that's going to have to raise as well.

Yes.

To meet code for clearance.

Correct.

Okay.

So the relationship between the top of the chimney and the top of the ridge will remain the same.

Correct.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Other questions for the applicant?

Was that in the application?

To increase the height of the chimney.

Are you asking if that was a request item?

Yes.

I mean it's it's shown here.

So staff takes it as we discussed the chimney height raising.

I think it's also code that the top of the chimney be a certain amount of distance above the actual roof structure.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Other questions for the applicant.

If not, they have a motion, please.

Mr.

Chair, I would like to make a motion to approve the request for a higher ridge height for the house without increasing the wall plate height of the original house.

There are second.

Second.

It's been moved improperly second discussion.

Yes, the reason why I think that's important to make a point about is this the front of the house is sort of a what tutor revival house.

And by raising the plate height by four feet, it's about 40 percent of the height of the house.

The proportion that one would see in a tutor revival has suddenly gone away.

Um it becomes much larger everywhere, including the chimney in the front.

Suddenly we have lost that historic house.

I can see adjusting for a 2 by 12 to hold up your second floor, but anything addition to that is an aberration of what this house was.

And so for that reason, I really think it's important to keep your plate height as it's originally shown, as it originally existed.

When you say plate height, that's of the original ground floor plate height.

Top of top of wall of the first floor.

And I think that was initial, the initial design.

We raised everything up and it looked kind of weird.

So in discussions with the staff, they suggested maybe just the back part get raised up and the front stay pretty much where it is, just for the same reasons.

I believe the motion asks for the the original plate height in the original part of the house.

Mr.

Chair?

Ma'am.

My concern is I don't think it's possible.

That I mean.

Yeah, I know your motion is that, but is it even possible?

Well, I guess from what I understand is the plate height right now is at nine feet three inches.

That's not going to change.

We're going to add a 16-inch LVL or something, whatever the engineer specifies on top of that.

And that's what's going to raise up the uh the what is it, the east-west roof?

It's essentially the the floor of the second story that is getting taller.

The first story is not getting taller.

So let's go to slide nine.

Commissioner Savina, just to clarify, you're talking about interior wall, right?

Or you're talking about the extreme on the road.

So you want that roof line to be, look at the what's on the screen right now.

You want the bottom of the roof to be where it currently is.

Where it currently is.

There's a relationship between the edge, the eve to the top of the window.

So my question to the applicant, is that possible with raising the roof?

We have to right now there's no overhang.

We probably have to do an overhang just to give it that look.

There are ways to do it.

There are ways to do it, um, just not the way you're doing it.

So that's part of what you guys do is figure that out.

I mean, we have knee walls on the inside, which brings in um, you know, keeping the roof where it is, you you have a knee wall with another plate at about four feet inside, but you're gonna have to pull it inside the the finished attic space.

That's just one way.

Sure.

Just uh and you're not you're not modifying any of the roof lines above the front door or the front windows.

It really is just that the front gables you are talking about?

Yeah.

I believe they raised by a foot.

Originally we took when we took the ridge height, we raised the front gables proportionally.

OH uh OHP didn't like that, so they wanted us to keep them similar to the same size that they are now.

So I believe they raised one foot, which is in the case file, I believe.

So I'm just not I don't know if I'm gonna support this motion just because I'm not sure it's possible, and maybe putting a little bit the applicant in a position.

You know, the applicant could withdraw, go back with the comments here now and and come back and see if it is a solution.

Because if it's not really, it doesn't it does make sense.

I mean I think I think the suggestion means that whatever space is going to be used up there is gonna get actually a little bit smaller because we're moving the walls in.

The only reason you're doing it is because you need the space.

So I mean then you could just basically withdraw them, do the same you'd have right now.

We did provide an existing a good solution and our ideal solution.

Um that was on one of the elevations and submitted that to OHP.

That's when they said they were okay with the ridge height we wanted to go, but they wanted the gables to come down.

That's what we were told, and that's what we provided.

Thank you.

Other comments?

Question for the applicant.

What so and maybe you said this, so forgive me if I missed it.

Did what is there what is the reasoning behind not keeping it the way that it initially was?

Just rebuilding it the way that it was.

So the the engineers' recommendations brought with the beefed up ceiling choice, it brought it up a certain amount, which was I believe it was a little bit over a foot, because right now it's just a two by four uh rafters or joists.

And so since it's going to be an occupied space, the engineer recommends a 16-inch uh LVL or whatever to that's gonna raise it up at least that much.

And at that point, the owner, the owner was saying, can we get a little bit more height to make the space more usable?

And so instead of you know going a full height, we said, let's go three or four feet, you know, to keep the proportions down.

Uh and that's where we're at.

Commissioner Fetts.

Total is is four feet.

So it's the 18 inches plus whatever, you know, three and a half feet in the end.

And because of the pitches of the roof, it was done to get some more head height inside that upstairs area.

But the main driver being to end up with more space than we initially had before the fire in the in the second floor.

Correct.

Yes.

Thanks.

So some of it is based on the engineer's recommendation, some of it is what we wanted to do.

And again, we did offer all of those options.

Mr.

Chair, I have a question.

An alternate motion.

Sure.

Uh to send this to a DRC and ask the applicants to come back with uh building sections east-west, north-south, showing what existing attic space is and what your proposed attic space is so that we could uh try to see the justification for increasing the height of the building.

Thank you.

So just to clarify, the first motion has been withdrawn.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Yes.

I think uh we just need a little more information.

Um the ones who have the dimensions of the existing building and what you want to what you are proposing.

And I think um there's enough uh confusion here or uh lack of support that uh we would like to see those uh drawings to see how much uh height and and square footage or height you're getting in the in the upper floor that uh may or may not be justified.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cervantes?

No, I just I I think that's that's that's uh that that's a good idea.

Uh you know, I I just want the applicant to understand that you understand the significance of the design changes you are making and how it how it impacts the the look of the house, the overall look of the house, the character of the house.

Um just kind of come that come with that in mind.

You know, I understand the practicality of wanting more space and what the engineers say, I get it, and the challenges is finding design and engineer to coexist so that you can complete the uh continue to have the aesthetic of the historic uh design element of the house.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

May I have a roll call, please?

Ma'am and Savino.

I.

Group?

Hi.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland?

I think.

Aye.

And Gibbs.

All right.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Item number 13, please.

Item number 13, 142 armor place.

Um the applicant, Jim Bailey is here.

Um Commissioners can answer questions.

Good afternoon, Commissioners.

Um here to answer questions unless you'd like me to uh talk about the project.

I would like to introduce you.

You introduce yourself first.

I know he does do it, but I want to hear from you.

So introduce yourself.

Oh, yeah, Jim Bailey, 142 or more.

Thank you.

Questions?

Yes.

Um the River Road uh neighborhood association.

Uh you've reached out to them, you have discussed things with them uh as well as the adjacent neighbors.

Uh there were some concerns expressed in one of the letters from the adjacent neighbor for drainage.

Um you had made some uh overtures to make those uh corrections or been uh I I bought the place uh probably six months ago now, and it's originally purpose-built as four uh 600 square foot apartments.

I'm kind of living in the upstairs two apartments right now.

All my other stuff is is downstairs at the moment.

Um want to get the carport and shed built first so that I have a workshop so that I can begin the work on the main house.

Um but I've been in ongoing conversations with Bradley and Gemma for six months.

Um they've made all their concerns very clear.

We've worked together.

Um we partnered up on a fence extension.

Um that was a staff approved uh C of A that came through.

Um they've expressed some concerns about views in the future.

I happen to share all I actually share every single one of the concerns in their uh letter.

And we've been talking about a variety of solutions for all of these.

They've talked about you know an art piece for extension of their fence, or do we do vines on my side, or do we you know close it with with you know, new they've got sort of a see-through fence with with uh horizontal slats.

You know, do we come back in to maintain the airflow through and do another set of offset slats or you know, like there there are a variety of potential solutions at play.

Uh I'm also very concerned about drainage, as you might imagine.

Uh my slot, my lot slopes directly down to River Road and into the river.

Um the grade is the same at the property line, but it it begins to slope um toward their property.

There's five feet between the the carport and the edge of the property.

There's plenty of room for a drainage swell.

Um the the grade toward the river is already in place, so it's just a matter of creating a simple ditch.

But you know, um Bradley and Gemma and I are going to be neighbors for the rest of our lives, I hope.

And so my intent is to make them as happy as anyone can be.

And we we've talked extensively about this.

They planted a couple of trees on the site, and you know, I'm watering those, and we're having discussions about um which invasive trees are coming out and which are which are staying.

So just typical neighbor conversation.

Um so I am a member of the River Road Neighborhood Association.

I joined as quickly as I could.

Um I invited uh the chair of the neighborhood design review committee, Barbara, to an initial meeting that I had with anybody I could think of in the near vicinity that might be impacted or might have an issue with anything visual or drainage or trees or whatever, um, and invited them all over to my house.

I had the uh proposed accessory structure staked out, and I had this presentation exactly ready for everybody to see.

I got found um nothing but um exuberant support from most of the neighbors, except Gemma, who was very concerned, and and Bradley obviously who was concerned on her behalf.

And so um we then took another, and Barbara Barber was there, saw it all.

Um we continued to meet Bradley and I intensively to agree on that sort of list list of things which would cause them to issue a sub uh letter of no objection.

Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

I just wanted to uh we got the letters.

I just wanted to confirm that you were on board with all of their concerns.

Oh, absolutely.

I I share all of the concerns.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Group.

I have a question for staff.

You only recommending conceptual approval.

And um the applicant is looking for final approval on the studio.

Um based on the windows.

I'm still thinking about the studio.

Okay, so you are asking for okay, because that's wasn't what I understood from the ask.

Okay, that's what I want to make sure.

I'd like to build the carport now, but I just want to think about the studio a little more.

Okay.

Thank you.

Other questions for the applicant.

I'll make a motion.

Please.

Um to accept the request along with staff stipulations.

Second.

It's been moved and properly second further discussion.

All right.

Do you have something?

May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Aye.

Savino?

Aye.

Mazuka?

Aye.

Group?

Aye.

Cervantes.

Yes.

Holland.

Aye.

Betzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Have a great afternoon.

Item 16, please.

Um that directly reflect um Commissioner Sabino is recusing from the item and is leaving the room.

Record reflects Commissioner Sabino is left the room.

Item 16, please.

Do I wait for her to come back before she's a question?

Yeah, just wait for Molly, please, sir.

Agenda item number 16, HTRC case number 2025-338, 1315 East Pirate Avenue.

The applicants requesting approval to construct a one-story single-family residential structure at 1315 East Pyrene Avenue, located within the mission historic district.

Staff recommends approval based on findings A through R with the following stipulations.

One that the final construction documents be submitted for review and approval by OHB staff prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness.

Incorporating stipulations approved by the HTRC to include a setback diagram, confirmation on total ridge height and a foundation height consistent with guidelines.

Two, that lap siding use feature to reveal no larger than five inches and a smooth finish.

Three, the the windows consistent with the adopted policy guide for windows and new construction be installed as noted and finding L and M.

Windows that are grouped should be separated by mullion of six inches in width.

Additionally, windows should feature equal size sashes.

Four, that the walkway featuring three to four feet in width be installed within the front yard is noted in finding in.

Five, that the that the proposed driveway be limited to no more than ten feet in width, as noted and finding Q that the visual prominence of the proposed garage be reduced by decreasing the front setback at the front bedroom wall by a minimum of three feet, and seven, that the applicant install a fully wood garage door or garage door with a design that mimics wood construction and features a smooth finish without a faux wood grain texture.

Additionally, the garage must feature a design to mimic a two-door appearance.

Final garage door specifications must be submitted to staff for review and approval prior to the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness.

The property owner who's a Charo is here in person.

Staff stipulations minus stipulation two, five and a portion of six, which he'll um he'll explain now.

Mr.

Charo, you have uh 15 minutes.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for having me.

My name is Jose Shiraud.

I am the homeowner of 1315 East Piran.

And I am um glad to be at this point where we are so close to the finish line that um I can taste it and it tastes good.

So my wife and I are wanting to build this home as a uh home to raise our son who will be here in three weeks.

And um I have a couple of questions about the recommendations.

Um first is number two that the lap siding be used feature or reveal no larger than five inches and a smooth finish.

Since this is going to be only in the rear of the house and not visible um to anybody in the neighborhood, um I'm requesting if it's eight inch possible in the back.

Um of the reasons for the eight-inch is that's the standard for the builder that we have.

Um what they mentioned was if we were to do a five-inch, they would actually purchase materials of eight inch and have to cut them down to five-inch wasting materials and uh occurring additional costs.

Um I wanted to get the um approval for the eight-inch.

Um also in six um that the visual prominence of the proposed garage be reduced by decreasing the front setback of the home, the bedroom wall by a minimum of three feet.

Um that was uh I believe as Mr.

Cervantes um put it open to interpretation from our last meeting.

I wanted to see if it was possible to get uh two foot instead of a three foot, just because again, that is occurring cost.

Um if it is uh three foot, if that is the recommendation, I am happy to to do it.

It's going to incur more cost as we are increasing the square footage of the home and we are paying per square foot.

Um last uh question is uh five, that the proposed driveway be limited to no more than ten feet in width as noted in finding cue.

Um I am asking if we can do a uh twenty foot or anything larger than ten feet in width, just because with the garage, as my wife or I have to back out of our driveway, uh one of us will have to make a maneuver to fit into that plan.

So if we go to the floor plans, please.

Uh yes, here.

So as seen on the current garage, the uh door width of this will be a 16 foot wide um with the driveway being uh larger than that.

If we were to taper down into a 10 foot wide um entryway, it would make it a little more challenging for my wife or I, um whichever side we take on that parking space to exit our driveway.

So I am just asking if we can change five uh to include twenty feet if possible, or anything larger than ten would be ideal.

And that is everything.

Mr.

Chair, I have a question.

Thank you.

Yeah, what is the width of and you I didn't hear it right?

The width of the garage door is so the garage door is going to be 16 feet wide.

Um the actual garage width according to this, looks like it is uh twenty one and a half.

Um so we're just requesting that so currently the way that we would have to do it is the sidewalk portion of the driveway would be 10 feet wide.

It would go up a little further and then would branch off into the full width of the garage.

So what I'm requesting is that we can make it a little easier for us to get in and out, that either we make it uh straight down to where the driveway is even the entire way, or um that we make it at least a little bit larger than 10 feet, so it'll be easier for us to get in or out.

Uh if if my wife was uh parked in and the her vehicle wasn't uh pushed up all the way to the front of the house, let's say if we had a a guest over and they were in the driveway, then all vehicles in the driveway would be blocked because that entryway is only 10 feet.

So I'm just requesting that we have um a wider opening than that 10 feet.

That answer your question, Mr.

Cervantes?

Yeah, and 16 feet would put it all the way even all the way down to the to the apron, right?

Well, 16 feet would um only match the door of the garage.

Um the garage width would be wider than sixteen, but sixteen, yes sir would match the the door opening.

Okay.

Um let's see here.

Uh what was the other one you're concerned with?

That was a good one.

Uh so it's uh two, five and six.

So two was five inch um uh siding.

Got it, got it.

And the garage, or rather the uh the three feet recommended.

What did we uh after we we talked about it, what what did you come up with as far as the design and in the So what we did was um in our sketch plans with my builder, um we are going to put it all the way out to three feet if that's what the um what the commission requires.

Um I am asking if it's possible to do two feet um with a three-foot um prominence of the left side of the home, then I am incurring an extra two square feet of cost uh because we're pushing the back of the home forward.

So if we were to do two feet, then I'm only gonna be charged an extra one foot by the builder.

So it would save me a little bit on cost uh by doing two feet instead of three feet.

So if you can see on the back of the house on the master suite, so if we can zoom in.

Um the original floor plan, um what we did was uh we wanted a little bit bigger of a bedroom, so I said, can you add a foot to the bedroom in the back?

So all they did was bump out an extra foot in the back so it had a little bit of a step in the back.

With the commission with the uh board's recommendation to pull that uh left side of the home forward, what we did was we just pushed that entire left side uh forward to now bring in more.

So this shows two feet um on the drawing, which it would now be uh three feet if you got if that is the requirement in item six.

Okay, I'm requesting if it's possible to stay at this two feet.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

That's all I have.

I have a motion when everyone's commissioner group.

I'm sorry, I think it's the first time I see this.

Is this a whole new construction?

Yes, ma'am, yes.

The the current home is uh not uh uh that livable right now.

We my family's own this home for a long time.

There's been a lot of issues with the home.

Um so we are going to rebuild.

Yes, ma'am.

So the driveway there is right now 10 foot driveway, it's existing.

There's really no real driveway in the home.

But there's a driveway cut.

It's a gravel driveway that was just like an entryway to the current home.

But the aprons there.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

And Stephike, do we have anything else, other plans, lot coverage, anything like that?

Um so I can answer that question.

Um the builder that um that the applicant's been working with or that the property owner's been working with um had some complications as far as contract and monies and what uh has actually been procured.

So a part of staff's stipulation is um stipulation one that basically that the permit set adheres to other stipulations and that they provide it for staffer review.

Um there's unless I'm incorrect, there's no other additional money for updated plans.

And uh and that's fair enough.

Um we were accepting and I know mission district is a little bit different in a front front facing garage.

Um I I can also answer that question.

So whenever this came for conceptual review um a couple cycles ago, staff did have a stipulation about locating the garage to a side or rear facing.

Um before that meeting, the property owner and builder attended a virtual DRC meeting and attended a DRC meeting um about a week ago to address the lot complications.

The applicant and the builder noting that the lot is pretty narrow and given that the applicant's vehicles are rather large, it's creating an issue as far as locating the garage to the side or the rear.

Um so having a removing the front-facing garage was a stipulation for conceptual, but the HDRC struck that um as a part of their approval and replaced it with the applicant coming for a DRC, which they've met.

We also did uh provide photos of other homes in the uh mission historic district that do have front-facing garages, um and we printed out photographs and provided that to the committee as well.

Okay, and then last question, because the lot seems pretty wide.

Um you you can you don't I mean you seem to have an issue with pushing it a little bit back?

Pushing what back?

The home?

The garage to front the front face of the garage, push it more further back.

So with the current um home plans that we have, the the garage um would not be able to be pushed back further.

Um it will eat into the current uh living space, kitchen, dining space that we have.

Um so that wouldn't be able to be pushed back.

So that's why we pulled the left side of the home forward as to be more prominent uh in front.

But it would solve your driveway too.

You would get more driveway for that one for that 12 foot apron and 10 foot approach and then widen it to 16 later.

Um is your patio, is there a roof over the patio or is it just a covered patio, yes, ma'am.

Covered with the roof of the whole house?

Yes, ma'am.

So you could potentially extend it out since it's new build.

I mean, we could potentially mitigate it.

You could.

Without eating into your living space.

So um what in this situation what we would have to do if we were to do that is offset the back of the home uh so it wouldn't be flush, the the back would the back patio would be pushed forward.

And on that wall, uh if we can zoom in on this uh master bedroom area.

So this wall um on the on the left side of the patio um is gonna be used for an outdoor kitchen.

So we do need to have this wall for water and gas lines.

Uh and that's why we couldn't push the left the right side of the home back any further because of the dimensions of the outdoor kitchen.

Okay.

If there's no further questions, I'd like to do a motion, Mr.

Chair.

One moment, please.

Um Vice Chair Pesser.

Yes.

Um this may be a question for staff.

The front setback of this house, how's how does it relate to the adjacent properties?

Uh great question.

So the property, if you're looking at the site plan um as shown here, the property to the left is a mobile home, which is set back pretty far.

Um the property to the right.

Oh, um, yes, Adrian, if you can show the yeah, the street view.

So the property to the left um is a mobile home.

Um so staff wouldn't consider setting this structure behind that front facade.

However, the structure to the right, if you can um zoom in really quick on there.

Um the applicants already noted that the uh rough um new construction will be in line with the front facade of that structure there.

Um but a part of the receiving a certificate of appropriateness would be providing that setback diagram to staff for review.

So it would need to either it would need to be set back from that front facade.

I see that as well.

So currently um 1319 East Pyrene uh is approximately 46 and a half feet from the sidewalk to the front door.

Um 1315 East Pyrene, which is my home, um, is actually a little bit less than that.

So if we were to um build in the same location, we would actually have to push the house back currently.

Specify how many feet yours is uh so it was um about 37.

It was on the day that I went to go measure, um I only measured the um neighbor's house uh to on 1319 East Piran.

Um the survey on mine I believe showed it.

Uh the survey if you had that one.

I believe this one should show.

Okay, I guess this one might not show the actual distance.

Um but it was uh currently less than the neighbor on 1319.

But I don't I don't have the I had a motion, Mr.

Chair.

One moment, please, sir.

Um did you have a further vice chairfesser?

Um just the question.

The lot is fairly deep.

Yes, sir.

So there wouldn't be an issue with pushing the house further back to match the adjacent property, would there?

Correct.

No, if uh if if we need to match the current property on 1319, um we are more than happy to do that.

That's yeah, it's not a problem.

It's actually something that we were hoping to do anyways just to be able to because if if we had to have this uh stick with the 10-foot width um driveway, that's something that we would have to do just to give ourselves a little extra curving space.

Uh my vehicle is a fairly large vehicle.

Um, and so for me to be able to maneuver out, I would need that extra space.

Obviously, having wider than 10 feet would make that a little easier for myself and my wife.

Um but yes, sir, that's something that we were planning on doing already.

Okay.

So pushing the whole house back provides two uh benefits.

One matching the setback of the adjacent property, plus giving you more uh driveway space.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

Um if we were to have a um our two vehicles in the driveway and two vehicles in the garage, it would make it challenging for my vehicle to exit uh with another vehicle being in that driveway.

So with the ten foot width of the um entryway of the driveway, it would make it challenging to have an additional vehicle in that driveway anyways.

So it would almost be a waste of a driveway unless we would push it way further back than 1319.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Cervantes, I'm ready for your motion.

And if anybody uh just want to clarify I asked for a motion when I first asked the question, and I think I was first.

But if if I'm if I wasn't, then tell me I wasn't.

Okay, sir.

Just for uh note, um my vehicle is 21 and a half feet uh from bumper to front bumper.

Um just wanted to throw that out there.

Thank you, sir.

Good, sir.

Okay, as part of the motion, uh Commissioner Ferser, do you have a recommendation for how far back to if I put a stipulation for moving the house?

As we discuss in the DRC, um I think pushing the garage wing back or having that set back as far as possible.

Uh and we had talked about a minimum of three feet.

Correct, but you're talking about three feet the whole pro the whole uh building, right?

Pushing it back?

No, the whole building, I would think would need to go back and at least match the setback of the adjacent property.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

So uh recommend approval with staff stipulations except two.

Um that the driveway be no more than the width of the door of the garage.

And that the entire property be pushed back.

You said three or five.

At least flush with least flush.

With the adjacent house.

Uh and that would negate uh number six.

You can keep it two feet if you want, but just push the whole thing back.

Sir, second.

Second.

Yeah, I just kind of want to hit on some of the things that we talked about in both DRCs.

I think this is uh uh we started he started out with one rec one project and we was kind of tailored down to to what's being presented now uh with some exceptions.

Um I think he's made a a pretty good effort to try and get to where we've asked him to be as a DRC uh during two of them, I think.

Was it two?

Two DRCs, right?

Yeah.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair?

Ms.

Your Group?

I will not be supporting the motion.

I um think staff had it right.

I mean, simulation two, I don't have a concern that much of uh the siding, but I do have a concern with the driveway.

I think that um we're pretty consistent with that, and I think it's possible because I actually think that the whole project should be, and I I think it that's a little bit where I'm confused is how far setback it is from the front uh, like if we're aligning with the side property.

Uh most historic homes have a a twin ten foot driveway and then expands to sixteen and we shovel cars every morning.

Um I'm a little bit concerned.

I mean, sometimes we have had exce exceptions for security or safety or things like that, but accommodating for um exterior kitchens or luxuries to me is a little not valid enough for me to give this exemption.

I I think we're still very um, you know, we're doing a front-facing garage.

And I think mitigating as much as possible.

Uh I think I mean I think that's where it should be setting back when the lot is actually big enough to uh accommodate for that.

If I can, um thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chair, we're in discussion.

Yes, one moment, please, sir.

Um the discussion.

Commissioner Besser.

Want to make an amended motion to um keep the driveway at 10 feet width uh as far back into the property until they can make it wider at the door of the garage.

The 10 feet with a 12-foot apron.

Yeah, I can add that as as a stipulation.

I can read we were at the stipulation that says that.

Or or can we maybe ask for a stipulation?

I mean, it's it's the ten feet wide width.

I mean, I guess it's uh, you know, a final driveway design that has as much as it can starting at 10.

But when we do have the final construction and aligning with that side property.

You know, it's telling us I mean we're not we're not asking for three feet, we're actually asking for more to accommodate for that driveway, right?

Well, there's two setbacks.

One is a setback of the whole house.

And we're talking about aligning it with the front of the adjacent house.

The other setback is from the front of the bedroom to the front of the garage.

And right now the staff recommendation is for three feet minimum.

Okay.

So let me um propose this.

I'm not so worried about the front bedroom.

I'm more worried about the front of the garage.

So since there's nothing to the left on what, 1313 East Pyron, but there is a property on 1319.

How about uh motion that kind of keeps it open and saying uh the front of the garage to be set back from the front of the wall of the house enough to align 1319 East Pyrene, and that way that accommodates for a longer driveway than might go with that except that 10 feet stipulation.

Does that make sense?

Let me let me try and re put that into the stipulation that I made.

So with regards to number five, Roman letter five.

Okay.

So that'll be five.

That'll be the stipulation.

Restate the stipulation.

Um the setback that it be in line with the house to the right, but also in that the garage door be set back three feet.

No, so only I'm suggesting to not reduce to front setback only the proposed garage setback.

Sorry, not front bedroom setback, but the Okay.

So in that case, I'll just leave it.

I'll just leave number five as is, or I'm sorry, number six, as is a three feet.

He's gonna have to eat the three feet of putting the house further out from the garage because this was discussed during the DRC during both DRCs.

This is this was exactly discussed.

And we've made recommendations to him, and one of them was that he's gonna protrude the left side of the house out three feet to give that garage more of a setback.

So we'll just keep that in there as is.

Sure.

That pushes the front end of the house.

And then you adjust the overall setback of the house as we've discussed here to line up with the neighboring house.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are my stipulations clear, staff?

But ask for legal.

Is that clear?

Yeah, I was I wasn't.

I don't even know if I understand it.

All right, I'm gonna restate the motion.

Okay.

Approval with staff stipulations, except number two.

And that number five, that the driveway start out at 10 feet and taper up to the width of the door of the garage door so it can be usable with regard to the house.

That the number six be as is.

Okay.

However, another stipulation that says the totality of the house be adjusted so that it lines up with the house next to it to the right.

Is that where we're getting at?

Yes.

Second concurs.

Second concurs.

Thank you.

Clarifying that.

Um further discussion.

All right.

May I have a roll call, please.

Ma'aman?

Aye.

Mazuka.

Aye.

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland?

Aye.

Fetzer?

Aye.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Thank you very much.

Item number 17, please.

This is HDRC case number 2024-407 for 418 East Locust.

The applicant is requesting a certificate of appropriateness to construct a three-story residential structure on the vacant lot at 418 East Locust, located within the Tobin Hill Historic District, in addition to a master landscaping plan.

Staff does not recommend final approval until all stipulations are met.

First, that the applicant proposes a setback that is greater than both adjacent structures based on finding D.

A foundation inspection is to be scheduled with OHP staff to ensure that foundation setbacks and heights are consistent with the approved design.

The inspection is to occur after the installation of formark and prior to the installation of foundation materials.

That the applicant meet all setback standards as required by city zoning and obtain a variance from the Board of Adjustment if applicable.

Third, that the applicant propose a wood or fiber cement vertical siding detail that is dimensioned and profiled to represent historic siting within the district.

And finally, that the applicant install real grass where artificial turf is proposed in the front yard.

The applicant, Joseph Smith is here in person.

If the applicant would like to come up and introduce themselves, you would you will have 15 minutes to speak.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Joseph Smith, uh JMS Architects, also uh neighborhood uh this property of 2213, North St.

Mary's uh in Tobin Hill.

So uh appreciate uh this this one's been going for a little while.

I think we're almost there at the finish line, so appreciate uh y'all working with us on that.

Um so going down the list of items that are um noted by staff.

We would like to I guess first discuss the setback.

Uh we did get a survey that was done, which is part of that packet, which is this drawing here.

Uh I think it's a little further back in the package.

Where we can use that is uh so the house to the east, immediate east of us, we are approximately uh three feet but behind that house, and then the house to the immediately to the west.

We are approximately the how our house steps back, but we're approximately about six inches in front of that house.

I feel like that that is a good congruent with the street.

So again, the house to the east is for is closer to the street, we would be set back, and then our house would be pretty much in line with the house immediately to the west.

We did have a survey and we staked it.

We had uh uh Miss Caitlin come out, we walked it together, looked at it.

Um this is some pictures of this every that is a survey correct.

So the property to the right on that survey is the house immediately to the east, which that house is closer to the street than we are proposing.

And then the top is the setback that we had staked out.

We had a surveyor staked that property based on our current drawings, which is what's in the packet.

So that's one uh item that for discussion.

Uh the next item I think is the use of the metal siding uh board and batten siding.

So we're proposing a metal board and batten siding.

Um I think what you see in a lot of infield development used today is a composite concrete panel, uh which in our opinion is an inferior product to what we're proposing.

We're proposing again, which is in the packet is a metal uh panel, which is a standing seam.

Uh we've used standing seam metal on two other projects that's gone through HDRC.

Again, our personal house on North St.

Mary's, and then another house on uh Kendall, which had standing seam.

Um again, uh it provides for a sustainable material, long-lasting, zero maintenance to that material.

Um, and again, I think in keeping with the spirit of the of the guidelines to use materials that again don't directly uh mimic historic but within the same context.

Uh here's a few pictures of some houses that this is further on the other side of Tobin Hill.

You can see it's uh composite standing seam, and you can see that house is probably maybe a year old.

You can see that it's not holding up very well.

Here's another house again on Myrtle Street, uh, which has the board and batten uh composite siding.

Again, you can see issues with that as well.

Um this is project that was reviewed by HDRC back in 2019, approved with standing seam, and then another project that we did in 2021, which is again in the his both of those projects are in the historic uh district of Tobin Hill.

This house actually is neighboring right around the corner from the proposed property.

And this is a cut sheet on the board and batten metal sighting.

And then this shows the profile of the board and batten siding.

So I think that was the second issue.

Um the third issue was the use of artificial turf in the front yard.

Again, there's another property right down the street that was approved on locust in the Tobin Hill district.

Uh I think I wrote it down on one of those pieces of paper there.

But uh I have photographs of that project.

Sorry, on my phone, which has the artificial turf.

Again, so you can see that's uh yeah, we are in water restrictions, good time of the year, you know, grass turf requires more so than planning material, more water and upkeep.

So again, you know, I think an argument can be made um as to the long term sustainability of the artificial turf.

So I believe those are the issues that are currently outstanding on the project.

Thank you.

Does that complete your presentation, sir?

I'm sorry.

Does that complete your presentation?

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

Um questions for the applicant.

Mr.

Chair, since now we now we're going by the process.

Yes, we will be, yes.

Um so um I'll start with um Commissioner Mazuka.

Um do you have questions for the applicant?

I think you're on mute, sir.

Not still hearing you, sir.

Um well I'll I'll come back to you.

Um Commissioner Stavantes.

No questions.

Commissioner Group.

Yes, I have some questions.

Um and I know maybe uh Caitlin's not here today.

So there's a um up a little bit further up, it says that the lot coverage is 53 percent, and it's exceeding the 50, but then it says that that stipulation has been met.

What is the lot coverage?

49.9 percent.

Okay.

And then um about the uh massing, there was a comment in staff about the massing.

Has there been any changes there?

There has not, not in the current iteration, no.

So maybe to staff, so you have not put that as a stipulation, but you have it that it's not something that you're does not go with the guidelines.

Um F.

Even though there are properties that measure 45, it says that it's neither consistent with the guidelines nor the historic development.

Staff finds that a further reduction of footprint of further separation massing should be more consistent with the guidelines, and then I don't see any stipulations on that anywhere else.

Right, because we're keeping it consistent with the conceptual approval.

I'm sorry?

We're being consistent with the conceptual approval, and so we're just noting what the outstanding stipulations from conceptual approval are.

Okay.

But we we I mean we don't want to hide the fact of the footprint, like so.

We're just providing the background.

Okay, and then um you're saying that staff was with you to look at the setbacks, but I guess staff has still has that stipulation after.

Is that correct?

Or can you all clarify?

Yes, we met we met on site.

Um, we had the stakes and we looked at it.

She felt like she understood, but she was still gonna keep that recommendation and leave it up to the to the board.

Okay, so but it should be greater and it's we we are greater than the house to the on one side, yeah.

And then the house to the west were pretty much in line with that house.

I know, but it's hard to tell with the with the shrubbery, and we haven't so the property to the east actually.

So this property over here, uh the owners bought that property, so we were able to survey it.

Um the property to the right or the west side over here, obviously that's private property, and we did the best we could to line it up, but uh you know she saw the stakes with that house as well.

What is the height on each of the properties?

Do we know?

Uh we we in the packet, uh there's some heights we actually used a drone and we actually measured all the heights of it.

That was again part of the discussion the last time we had this.

So you basically not uh the four stipulations you're not agreeing to them.

That's why they're still there, and staff does not recommend approval.

On the stipulations, yeah.

So I mean there's not one that you agree with on the four stipulations that staff are presenting.

Okay.

Commissioner Holland.

Uh that was in the last packet.

No.

Yeah.

Just on the applicant.

Just on the so there's a there you're still six inches in front of the house to the east of you.

I'm not sure which one, but one of them to the west.

Yeah, what just why can you just move back six inches or move back a foot?

Um you know, we this house uh is large.

Uh and that that's been the challenge to fit this on the property.

Uh but with the floor plan, everything, all the the uses, everything we have we have reduced the size of the house and the the depth of the house.

Uh you can see here uh how it uh actually on this drawing the existing house uh is in front of it, and then the other house pretty much is in line with it.

Um, but in my opinion, the house to the on the corner to the to the east is closer to the street.

And again, our house helps to step back to to the rest of the block.

And that street, it's hard to tell because the street does actually have a slight angle to it, which is angling this way.

So whether or not that setback is the same or because when we measured it, it was 28 feet.

That was from the property line.

But the street I think has a little bit of an angle to it, which changes that geometry.

What what happens if you pick the whole house up and move it back?

You're at the rear set deck.

Yeah, you're at there.

So you're on it.

Okay, sir.

That that was that's where I was going to be able to do that.

Sorry.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Fesser.

Did you explore other options for the uh front yard landscaping such as ZeroScape as opposed to artificial turf?

That would be through the landscape architect.

We're not uh the landscape architects, but I think that they would uh they would certainly uh you know entertain other ideas.

I mean they they just want a you know a low maintenance yard, frankly.

Something that's sustainable and not using a lot of water, so I think yes, they would be very open to a zero escape.

I think that could be a a stipulation that they would very much be in, you know, agreeable to.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Savino?

Yes.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I have a few questions.

Let me find the page.

Um Mr.

Smith, what are the plate heights for your first floor and second floor?

Uh we are at 12 feet, 24 feet to the uh on the second floor.

Well, 12 foot plate height, floor to floor is 12 feet, and then it's another uh 12 feet to the next floor plate, and then it's I believe 11 feet to the top floor.

Okay, and you're using probably uh 16, 18-inch-scale.

There they are they're a full 24-inch.

So we have roof decks, and by the time we have the roof decks and what have you, we have a 24-inch interstitial space between the floors.

Okay with the roof decks, you know, step down for drainage and what have you.

So generally we are at about 16, but because of the roof decks to provide the drainage requirement and the decking and everything else that we have, that are it kicks it up to 24.

So and comparing it with the elevation view of your neighbors, um perhaps I mean those numbers seem really high, 45, 40 feet for the other houses.

I get they're big, they're massive also.

Um, but could that dimension be to the finished grade?

I mean we have, you know, with a house of this size and you know the current market, what have you?

I think a 10-foot ceiling is not out of the question for the the size of the home.

So to reduce plate heights between it with to get the drainage and everything required, I don't think that's practical uh to reduce the height.

Uh again, we in the last uh iteration, we did we took drone videos and heights of the whole street and went through this whole you know, the height, the height hasn't changed since then, which was approved then.

Right.

And the floor um, approved in conceptual, right?

Correct.

Yeah, conceptual as a reminder, conceptual approval is not binding.

Understood, but also that's a guideline to move forward.

Yeah, we can yes, yes, so we can't revisit in context with other things.

So I guess my question is similar to my colleague um Commissioner Holland.

Um I think this could benefit tremendously from a setback increase of even 24 36 inches.

Are you saying that that would be impossible?

Well, with the current uh layout in terms of the rooms they want and the sizes, yes.

Okay that would that would not be possible.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Mama.

No questions, sir.

Thank you.

Um back to Commissioner Mazooka question, sir?

So can't hear um if do you have questions?

If not shake it sound like you're trying to talk.

No questions.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

Um they have a motion I'll do a motion if there's no more questions.

Please go ahead.

I guess I'll I'll trust the motion move to approve but with a stipulation, the setback stipulation.

I guess with all four stipulations.

Sir second I would I would second but I would I would ask I have just quick thoughts on the uh the third stipulation about the wood or fiber cement uh the vertical siding I feel like the the proposed material is appropriate.

I don't specifically have an issue with that.

Okay.

So fiber cement is actually much better than the wood.

I don't know about the examples that you showed.

Some people don't maintain their homes in very well right so they might just be wood board pattern that you need to maintain right so it doesn't rot.

I'm keeping it there as of now because I know you have examples but in this district according to staff it's not really found something we always look at it like each property.

So maybe it's something you can come back with if you find that in the district it's you know more common.

I know there's examples of one or two that you mentioned but I think we're we're going really um I mean it's a property and the design and the size and the scale and the mass I understand.

I am still I still believe that it's uh it's at a bigger scale that I would accept but I get that this was you know a respect to conceptual approval.

So I think that you know as much as we can keep some of those historic materials or historic elements as much as a you know not introducing elements that maybe are not found normally in the historic district that would I would appreciate that.

Second thank you.

So it's been moved in properly second further discussion Mr Chair I'll go ahead and start.

My main concern from the outset was the the scale and the and the size of it and the massing of it even though it is in a an array of other large Victorian era structures.

And it's an it's a concern of mine because so many other things are modern or rather contemporary forms that you've used the way you've used certain forms, the materials the landscaping there's so many things that are contemporary even though it is it meets the letter of the guideline the spirit of the guideline seems to have missed a little bit on the elevation I'm looking on page 71.

So what a setback does if you set back two, three feet away it allows that building that new construction, those new ideas to sit kind of quietly back and let the historic buildings to remain the focus of that block phase.

That's one way that those two approaches can coexist on a block.

We've got cases in my neighborhood I've seen other cases in neighborhood where we are uh slicing and dicing the square footage as well as the setback footage numerically by the guidelines, you know by the letter but then when you drive down the street there's a clear oh my what happened here moment.

And it would be um nice to have this infill a significant house without that effect and that's why I think if a setback of two and three feet could could achieve that my comment or one moment please sir I just want to make sure my other commissioners have anything um Commissioner Mazuka any comments are you able to hear anything from sorry sir.

Commissioner Cervantes Yeah um I agree with Commissioner Savino I I think that I won't be I won't be recommending approval because conceptually I don't even think this really even though you followed the guidelines and you technically kind of met the intent I don't think it looks like it belongs on that street.

And I think conceptually, I think, yeah, it's a subject of negotiation, but I think kind of you kind of want to at least if you get approval on this, you definitely want to do some DRCs or something to get some insight uh as to how to bet you know you can start with the setback.

All the comments that were made here tonight make sense.

And I I just it doesn't seem like this House belongs on that street as I look at the other houses and I look at the street view, and then I look at your rendering here.

But again, that's broad brush stuff.

So that's where I'm at on this.

Thank you.

Anything further, Commissioner Group.

I mean, this commission approved uh conceptually back in April.

I'm not sure, you know.

I don't know, we there's a lot of cases.

So I do feel like we there's some concerns maybe raised today that I respect that if if we conceptually, we always do that, right?

I mean, conceptually do mean like you have a fairly green light to continue the design, um, then you know, a stipulation of massing should have been added back then, if if that still is a concern.

That's just the only way, like I'm I don't know, kind of leaving the applicant with no.

I mean, that's just why my concern a little bit if if this motion is not supported.

Or we can also I'll take an amended motion if this wants to be continued at a DRC again and again.

Um I'll just clarify quickly if you don't mind.

Um the stipulation about setback was meant to address kind of both the setback issue, but you can also imagine if it comes back, however many feet, that's going to make it hit that 50 percent mark.

So it would address the footprint as well.

It would address the footprint but not the scale.

And I think the scale is the one that still is there.

Um Commissioner Holland?

Thank you, Lice Chair Petcher.

Uh I would agree with the comments about setback.

Um in terms of the material substitution, um, I think the uh proposed steel metal or the steel uh board and batten um as long as it meets dimensionally uh matches the wood or fiber cement, I would not have an issue with that.

And then uh as I mentioned earlier, uh look at uh other alternatives to the artificial turf.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mammon.

Uh just a comment in and for clarity, I think is what the setback from Commissioner Holland's question earlier is it would be a reduction of the size of the house if it's if it's set back, because I I believe the the comment back was that the rear of the house is as far back as it can go.

That's correct.

It would have to come out of the square footage.

Just for full clarity on that.

Yeah.

Thank you.

And I skipped you, Commissioner Savino, because you were already speaking.

Did you want to do that?

Oh, I have no further questions.

Thank you for asking.

Thank you, thank you.

All right.

May you have a roll call, please.

Aye.

Civino?

Nay.

Mazuka.

So we're recording that as a nay.

Group?

Group.

Aye.

Cervantes?

No.

Holland?

Aye.

No.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries.

Thank you.

Sorry for clarification.

What is the motion?

I'm not um sorry, I'm a little bit.

So I state it's approval with the four stipulations.

So staff was recommending not recommending final approval until those stipulations are met.

So I guess it's you just have to meet those four stipulations for a final approval.

Can I ask a uh a question?

Okay, sir.

You know, um my clients had a lot of community support the last time we were here.

And we talked about messing, we talked about the heights, we talked about the setbacks.

Um, and all of those items were fully discussed and agreed to.

You know, metal sighting has been used in the district and has been approved on other projects?

You know, we go through preliminary or conceptual, and then we spend a lot of money and time on engineering, and then to have these kind of conversations come up at final is very difficult for them to understand, as you can imagine.

I hear you, sir.

Um, but one thing that you I hope you understand with this process is that you know is a stages to this, and so each time you come back, then you know there may be things that you know weren't clarified or things that that now become clear, things like that process, and of course we're going along with what the guidelines state.

So now when staff says to you that you know they're not recommending because of the stipulations that were there, the commission hears that.

You know, we see we have the packet, we get the packet ahead of time, we hear from you, the applicant, and then we go through discussion.

So now these commissioners that are here now, you know, heard you and say, okay, um, we're going to go along and recommend approval, you know, for this, but these stipulations have to be in place.

Okay.

So you have to kind of I mean you can I mean the vote has already happened, you know, this is what it is.

But but however, you know, if you're not happy, you know, with that, you know, you do have options.

Okay, you know, to for appeal and things to nature, but that's pretty much what you are.

I understand where you're coming from as far as your, you know, uh, for lack of better word, first choice terms, not for you or for the applicant, but this is just this is the process.

No, I I understand that.

But uh, but I guess my point is that a few of these stipulations like the setback, you know, we talked about the set as long as it was, you know, even with the rest of the houses.

That was we can go back and watch the tape, whatever.

I mean, that was my understanding as I was standing here, and we all agreed to it.

But then it was written it must be further back.

Okay, that threw us a little bit, and then we had the meeting and we surveyed it.

But I I'm hearing some things here, it needs to be two to three feedback.

So I'm just trying to get clarification.

I don't want to keep moving forward.

I think it the option is if I mean is it just the pure sti if I meet all four of these stipulations that was on the staff, then we get approval.

I'm just want to get a little bit of a.

And let me clarify that I guess this is also one of the reasons why I didn't specify a certain amount of feet, as long as it's greater.

If you said it's six inches, and you can approve, and you do one foot, that's fine.

There's no measurement stated in the motion.

I just want to get that clear.

Well, staff, it will be at staff discretion, but that's what the motion is just greater, right?

Um I also did say that you can always come back with with five or cement uh with the metal solution as of is right now in my motion.

I wasn't putting it there.

You heard the discussion.

You may be able to come back for an amendment of material.

Um and I think the other two stipulations are I think fine, right?

Okay.

Yeah, I just want to get clarification because again, uh, you know, this is fun, but I you know do it one more time.

No problem, sir.

Thank you.

And then of course, if you have any further questions, staff will be able to help you with that.

Thank you.

Item number 18, please.

Agenda item number 18, HDRC case number 2025-328, 901 North Alamo Street.

The applicants requesting a certificate of appropriateness for approval to construct an exterior stairway to connect at the wraparound porches north east.

Staff recommends approval of the request um to construct a two-story stairway based on findings A through E with the following stipulation.

One that the location be moved to the north right side elevation instead of the front primary elevation.

The applicant may work with OHB staff and development services department regarding this and other alternative locations that minimally impact the front facade.

The property owner's representative Eddie is here in person.

Um before we like that before we begin, staff would like to note that this uh went to a on-site DRC meeting last week.

Um the property owner unfortunately was unable to attend today, but um the representative can answer questions by the from the commission.

And Eddie, you'll have 15 minutes if you want to read the letter and uh make any note.

Okay, of course.

Uh just for introduction, uh Edward Combs, representative of 901 North Islands.

Is your mic on, sir?

Uh am I just not I'm just not close enough.

I uh Edward Combs for 901 North Alamo Street.

Uh I know it says Eddie just what they call me.

Um good afternoon.

Say last Wednesday we had Jesus.

Uh sorry.

I know.

Uh last Wednesday we had two historical committee uh members visit our 901 property in regards to the staircase that we have on the uh front of the property.

Uh these stairs are referred to as stairs 240 and are required due to um code for access to the uh exterior balcony.

Uh um we have gone through several several building revisions uh from October 20 uh 2024 to May 2025.

Uh these stairs have been relocated uh to its current position uh after several revisions where the stairs sit now has currently been approved by fire building and and MEP uh reviews except for historical.

Uh these stairs have been relocated uh to its current position uh after several revisions where the stairs sit now has currently been approved by fire building and and MEP uh reviews except for historical prior to the December third meeting we revised the building with the building review by widening the egress from its six feet to the maximum of nine feet um to where it meets the pickleball court fence um this ended up triggering a couple of uh issues mostly most notably pertaining to IBC 705.8 uh building on the same lot line um part of the code pretty much uh is critical in regulating how many openings uh we are allowed to have on the exterior walls to prevent fire jumping from one part uh one building to another across the property line um moreover we had attempted to ask for a uh two hour firewall as requested by one of the committee and the IBC um table 705 point minimum distance is three feet um it's clear that a four foot staircase against the existing one hour northern wall of building two is not permitted um how they looked at the minimum distance allowed is three feet um there um sorry I'm trying to read all this with trying to understand it um to further clarify if we are to do that then the egress is either three feet to the right or two feet to the left which is not allowable for any space serving more than 50 people that's why the original layout of the site plan calls for six feet which is designed for more than 240 people.

Today we're asking the committee to vote for an approval of the staircase of 240 where they sit and they were completed as two September 2025.

My team and I have spent 14 months developing this plan.

We've been building since May um the exit path is what makes the most sense facing towards the east unless we completely demolish uh the pickleball court that is proposed um and while we don't we wouldn't want to lose that it would also cause us to extend the second floor uh two feet to the north past the building line um in order to accompany those stairs due to uh egress and our uh I forgot what it's called grease trap being located right there in the uh a ditch alongside the building too um yeah that's more stop story stuff I'm not gonna go through all that but that that's really it for me.

Thank you sir appreciate it.

Um questions for the applicant um Commissioner Mazuka start with you sir still not hearing you sir so unfortunately you had to move on um commissioner Cervantes no questions thank you commissioner group I do have some questions um maybe just if one of the commissioners present could uh kind of give some feedback yes that was myself and Commissioner Mizouka um we did look at the site um there is a grease trap located on the on this plan uh above the building uh basically where that uh those red dashed lines are um I requested uh the applicant talk to DSD and and fire marshal to talk about having a um higher rated wall on that side so that the fire stair could run along there and uh what I understand is it still needs to be three feet even if the wall goes to two hour rated uh is due to three feet due to the uh capacity limit of the staircase uh the three feet keeps us at a 50 person rating uh we'd have to extend I believe is to uh sh okay sorry no uh yeah three foot minimum distance uh with a two hour firewall currently it's a one hour firewall so we can't would I guess we wouldn't be able to do that unless we um increase the firewall rating from one hour to a two hour uh because one hour is only supported by three four we could do a two hour um also to just uh um maybe clarify um that he he sent me an email as well he was also noting that there's a minimum distance of three feet with the wood uh stair on that wall so even if they were to increase it to a two hour fire fire rating um it there's no opportunity to move that stair closer to that wall um and given the three foot requirement um the stair location would still impact that uh grease trap uh line okay and we were uh informed that the existing um metal fence on Alamos Street and uh the side street what's side street ninth street um are planning the operators are planning to keep those in place and so they were advocating that this stair would not have uh much visibility from

Okay.

And we were uh informed that the existing um metal fence on Alamo Street and uh the side street, what's the side street, 9th Street, uh are planning the operators are planning to keep those in place.

And so they were advocating that the stair would not have uh much visibility from Alamo.

Um but one concern was that uh should those fences come down in the future, then that stair would be right there in the the front of the the building.

Um thank you.

And I just uh actually had a question on the fences.

Right.

And I think for step so because the applicant is putting up a 10-foot fence on Alamo because of the pickle port pickleball courts, correct?

Yes, and so they were approved for a 12-foot tall uh chain link fence.

Uh it's per code, it's required to be five feet set back from the um from that Alamo Street.

Um additionally, the it has to um it has to be around the pickleball court or along that perimeter.

So it's going to be here.

Um let me pull it up.

Um the way that the lot is set up is that there's going to be two pickleball courts adjacent to one another, and then it's going to go into um a few feet and then into the side of the building, and I can go to the site plan as well.

Yeah.

But um but I think I understand.

So like if they're approved for 12 foot fence, they want to put up the 12 foot fence because they want the pickleball courts, right?

So they want the stairway there also because they want to keep the so if the property were to if anybody were in the future to change that fence, that would have to come back to us as well.

Um for are you saying to remove the 12-foot tall?

Well, it was just because one of the concerns is if that wall were to come down at some point, but it right now as it is, it wouldn't without coming back to us.

Correct.

If he was wanting to, so the existing metal wall um is grandfathered in, so there's no recommendation from staff or anyone else that it needs to be replaced or come down.

Um as Commissioner Fesser had mentioned, the applicant's intention is to keep this for security purposes.

But if he were to remove this metal wall fencing, if you were wanting to install something that um goes outside of what's approvable, then he would need to come back either to this commission or the compliance technical advisory board.

But the way that staff would look at it is is that this would be a front yard fencing condition, so it would be the typical four feet in height with um alternative designs.

There's not there's not a opportunity to approve this type of wall administratively I have no further questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Hyland?

Just following up on what Commissioner Grew was saying.

So if the wall's 10 feet or if there is a chain link fence that's 10 feet, when will will that need to come back to this commission to come down for any reason?

That's just for clarity.

Great, great question.

If the applicant or a future property owner wanted to remove those fences, the removal of the fence would be um approvable administratively.

Yes.

Um something I'm a little unclear about is are the two is the property with the structure and the property with the pickleballs, are that platted two separate properties?

I I believe they are two separate properties uh currently split by the grease trap line.

Um and that's what's kind of causing the uh the width of the staircase issue as well as in regards to the fire code recommended for how far we have to have the staircase away from it, it both intrudes on the property line and it sits above the grease trap uh, which I believe was uh a violation stated towards us that we weren't allowed to do.

Right.

But if the if it wasn't two uh separate properties, and maybe staff can clarify this, then technically the stair could go along that east side or the north side.

North side.

Um they would lose a pickleball corridor that their use of that part of the site would have to be reconfigured.

Um but is it two separate properties?

I I don't have the answer to that.

If if they are indeed two separate properties, and the property owner can go through a um replatting process to combine the properties that may allow for additional wiggle room on installing the stair to that north wall.

Um the property owner has you noted that um and he had mentioned this during the site visit was is their intent it is their intention to keep the three pickleball courts and there's um standard regulation about how wide they can be and such, and so any um any stair installed on that north wall will uh result in the removal of one of the pickleball courts um and it may interfere with that um grease line, grease trap that's right there too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sabino?

Um so having the survey showing uh property lines and meets and bounds, et cetera, would be helpful for this conversation.

Uh well with the wood uh staircase that's currently there that was built without the COA, has um it been structurally inspected either by your engineer or by the city yet?

Uh the current staircase has been in uh been inspected by city uh uh just I'm trying to remember I know it was by a fire building and MEP uh obviously except for historical.

Um they've all seen the structure, they've all approved it um to be structurally sound and stable for uh 240 people of traffic, I believe.

For the load.

Um I tokay.

Um the other question would be so to confirm if we went with a two-hour wall on that north wall.

You could put a staircase there, as long as it's built of a non-combustible material.

Without uh going over where the grease trap line is or possibly even cutting into the courts.

Um that is a I believe that might be a possibility.

Um I'm not too familiar with the fire code myself.

Just it's the wood that's hanging y'all up.

It's the wood material that creates the limitations.

And so that's why I thought um if you explored non-combustible material, you know, we weld and put stringers together and do all sorts of metal things.

So I was wondering if you had uh researched that.

Uh I have not personally I'm not sure as far as my um lead uh construction per uh person.

Um I believe they've looked at a couple different feasible options because uh they are possibly concerned because there is going to be um a lot of beverages that flow possibly up and down the staircases.

You know, they might be worried about if say if we choose a metal surface, they might have to worry about it.

Yeah, it's done frequently.

So I just wanted to know if you all had pursued that because that would allow you to use the two-hour wall in the proximity.

I would say possibly, but I cannot speak for 100%.

Right, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Mammon.

No no questions.

Thank you, sir.

Um I have a motion, please.

I'll do a motion.

Please, ma'am.

I'm gonna move to approve as uh submitted with a stipulation that all fencing be um kept and at least uh whatever is there right now, and any new fencing with the pickleball be 12 foot height.

Second.

Thank you.

It's been moved improperly second.

And here's the deal.

I I um I understand from the last presentation, and then um I didn't make it to the DRC, but I did go by I think the visibility and what I understand from the last presentation, and this case has been before us a lot, and there's been huge modifications to this home from what it looked like to what it's gonna become.

Um so I the staircase to the left, the other side of the property is metal.

Um I guess what I understood from the last uh presentation was you know they are asking for this.

Yes, there is a possibility to put a north, they would lose a pickleball.

They have to reroute the grease trap.

Like and I guess it's maybe confusion with DSD, and I appreciate uh Commissioner Fetz's comments about that too.

It's like it has been inspected.

There was, you know, a firewall requirement that made that, and I understand the applicant has probably not um understood what the historic guidelines do mean, but he has already complied with a lot of the other things around the property.

Um we always also want to accommodate sometimes the applicants, right?

I mean, I do understand the pickleball courts and I mean this area, this corner needs some development, so I look forward to it.

But I think the fencing of it is the reason why.

Um if the fence were to come down, I think the stairway should come down another solution.

I think the fence just makes it less visible from the street and still keeping.

And I think last time too, I had a little bit of discussion, like the front of the property is North Alamo because of the address, but really it looks like more.

It's 9th Street, but it's kind of like almost a corner.

So kind of going with that direction, it's like okay, so we have a staircase on one extreme corner, and then you have another staircase on the other corner and kind of going with that.

But I think the fence and the fence height is important here.

Thank you.

Um try again, um, Commissioner Mazooka.

Um comments.

No comments, all right.

Um Commissioner Savantes.

Yeah, just a very quick question.

I agree with Commissioner Groot uh on everything she says.

I have a question about the fence.

I know you touched on it.

Can he repair the front the fence, upgrade the fence without taking it?

Now, what are his limitations with that fence?

I understand he can't take it down and put a new one up.

I get it.

But what can he do with what he's got there?

So um if staff were to receive an application for repair of the fence, then we would um so long as it's considered in kind, then we would um administratively approve that.

Now there's certain permitting requirements um when it comes to repair.

I believe it's if more than 25 percent of the wall needs to be repaired, then it requires a permit.

Um the applicant or the property owner may need to receive a variance from the Board of Adjustment given that it's a corrugated metal material.

So um, but so long as it's in kind repair with OHP, they would receive a administrative COA.

Okay, so you you you gotta keep up with that fence, right?

You're where I'm going with that, right?

No, definitely, because it would cause a whole uh Right.

You don't want to go.

Thank you.

You good, Commissioner Group?

You good?

Okay.

Commissioner Allen?

I don't have any comments.

Thank you.

Commissioner Fesser.

Yes.

Um I will not be supporting the motion.

I think there are still other options such as non-combustible material for the stair and relocating it on the north side.

Umce the other uh exit stair that's already been constructed is uh out of steel construction.

Um so there is precedent and um so I'll not be supporting the motion.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Celino.

Um I also will not be smoke supporting the motion for the very reasons that Commissioner Fetzer mentioned.

There are other options.

Um even to the point that one could do a non-combustible metal staircase in that same location, and it would look totally different.

You could make it, you know, light and very ethereal, and it wouldn't be sort of the I don't know, the growth, the massive heavy wood growth that it is now that obstructs that elevation, whether it's a side or front, whatever.

It is an intrusion on that on that beautiful building.

So um I would just encourage if the opportunity arises to reconsidering that staircase material.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Mammon.

No comments.

Thank you.

All right.

May I have a roll call, please?

Mammon.

Aye.

Savino.

Nay.

Commissioner Mazuka.

Okay, since we can't hear you, unfortunately we can't count that.

Um Commissioner Group.

Aye.

Cervantes?

Yes.

Holland?

Aye.

Fetzer?

Nay.

And Gibbs.

Aye.

Motion carries.

Motion carries, thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Appreciate your time.

Thank you all.

That was the last case on the agenda.

Um since it's the last case of the agenda, last case of the year.

Wish everybody Merry Christmas, happy new year, see everyone on the third week of January.

We are adjourned.